non serviam #2
**************
Contents: Editor's Word
Svein Olav Nyberg: The Self
Ken Knudson: A Critique of Communism and
The Individualist Alternative (serial: 2)
***********************************************************************
Editor's Word
_____________
A friend of mine was half a year ago confronted with the claim that the
Self "really did not exist", and that this was scientifically proven.
At the time, I only laughed, and considered the proponent of the idea
to be a little weird. I still consider it weird, but having heard the
claim over again, I do not laugh.
In the last issue, I went over the basic types of [mistaken] selfish-
ness, and promised to follow up with a discussion of what was the true
Self/ego. In conjunction with the above concern, this is the starting
point for my article The Self.
Ken Knudson's eminent article continues. The chapter one makes up
almost half the article, so I have chosen to issue the rest of the
chapter as separate issues, so that discussion may begin. I hope the
somewhat arbitrary sectioning of the article into the different issues
is forgiven.
The next chapter will be "REVOLUTION: THE ROAD TO FREEDOM?".
Svein Olav
____________________________________________________________________
Svein Olav Nyberg:
The Self
As seen in the last issue, what "selfish" means depends strongly upon
what you mean by "self". I will not here try to correct all the wrong
ideas of what the Self is, but rather give an indication of what I think
the right view is. There are, as you well are aware, many different
conceptions of what "self" means. A general line of division between
these conceptions I have found very well illustrated in Wilber, Engler
and Brown's book on the psychology of meditation [1]: To different
stages of cognitive development belongs different self -structures and,
not the least, -images. The highest stage, called the Ultimate stage, is
described as "the reality, condition, or suchness of all levels." If you
draw the stage diagram on a paper, the Ultimate Self is in relation to
the other "selves" as the paper in relation to the elements of the
diagram drawn on it. Improper selfishness, then, might be viewed as the
mistaking of the image for the real thing.
So, there is a very important division between the underlying Self, and
the various self-images. This division is found more or less explicitly
in a variety of sources. Pirsig, in his famous best-seller, denounces
the ego, but embraces the Self in his praise of arete as "duty towards
Self." [2] The philosopher Nietzsche writes that "The Self is always
listening and seeking: it compares, subdues, conquers, destroys. It
rules and is also the Ego's ruler. Behind your thoughts and feelings,
my brother, stands a mighty commander, an unknown sage - he is called
Self.", and also, a little above this, "[the Self] does not say 'I' but
performs 'I'." [3].
In [1] it is concluded that though all who experience the Ultimate
stage do essentially the same, the experience and understanding of it
depends on the prior interpretation. The Buddhist experience an egoless
state, while the theistic meditators experience [being one with] their
god. Who is having this unifying experience? The same guy, essentially,
who has everyday experience. Fichte [4] asks of his audience, "Gentle-
men, think of the wall," and proceeds "Gentlemen, think of him who
thought the wall." In this way he gets an infinite chain, as "whenever
we try to objectify ourselves, make ourselves into objects of
consciousness, there always remains an _I_ or ego which transcends
objectification and is itself the condition of the unity of conscious-
ness," as Copleston describes.
Now, whether we shall side with the meditators who claim to experience
this _I_, or with Fichte who says we cannot, is of little importance
here. What is important, is that the _I_, this ground and condition
indeed exists, and that it is the ground of the empirical ego or egos.
I want to take a closer look at this _I_ - the Self.
So far, the Self may be seen on as something just lying in the back-
ground, a kind of ultimate observer. But Fichte's question can also be
asked of action, "Who is lifting your arm when you lift your arm?"
Like it was clear in the first case that it was not the image of the
Self - the ego - that was aware, but the Self itself, it is equally
obvious that it is not the image of the Will that lifts the arm - but
the Will itself. To understand this better, try to will the coke bottle
in front of you to lift. Won't do. Now, "will" your arm up in the same
way that you willed the coke bottle. Won't do either. Still, lifting
the arm is easy. (See also [3])
Proceeding like above, we can find a well of parts of the underlying
Self. But they are all one. The Self that sees the stick is the same
Self that throws a rock at it. How else would it hit? I have found it
useful to single out three of them, which I will call the Experiencing
Self, the Creative Self and the Teleological Self.
Stirner [5] speaks of "the vanishing point of the ego", and of the
"creative nothing". He has "built his case on nothing". This latter is
the one that reveals what he intends. For surely, he has built his
cause on - himself. But in the way of Fichte, the Self is not a thing,
but the basis for speaking of things. To be a thing is to be an object
for some subject and, as Fichte showed, the subject cannot properly be
an object. So, Stirner's "creative nothing" is him Self.
In contrast to Fichte, however, Stirner emphasizes the finite here-and-
now individual Self, not the abstract Ego: "Fichte's ego too is the
same essence outside me, for every one is ego; and, if only this ego
has rights, then it is "the ego", it is not I. But I am not an ego along
with other egos, but the sole ego: I am unique. Hence my wants too are
unique, and my deeds; in short everthing about me is unique."
So we see Stirner rejects the positivistic idea of viewing himself from
a 3rd person vantage point. He is not "ego", the image of himself. For
one can have an image of anyone. But ones own Self is experienced from
the 1st person point of view, and one is oneself the only one who can
experience oneself from there. Again quoting Stirner: "They say of God:
'Names name thee not.' That holds good of me: No -concept- expresses
me; they are only names."
The history of philosophy can be simplified as follows: We have gone
from a focus on experienced reality, to experienced self, and from that
on to that which contains both - the Experiencing Self. Stirner, as a
student of Hegel, must have seen this, and, as he states, this history
is also _my_ history. The dialectic process is taken back into its
owner. I am not any longer viewing myself as a moment in the dialectical
self-unfolding of the Absolute, but as he who learns and thinks these
thoughts, and - take the advantage of them.
The philosophical process did not stop at the Experiencing Self, with
which an empiricist would be content. A reaction came, asking what
elements of experience were constituted by the subject himself. The
observer was no longer seen as a passive observer, but as an active
participant contributing his own elements into experience. Thus we
can say that the awareness of the creative role of the intellect was
properly emerging. We had the Creative Self. This was idea was taken
very far by Stirners teachers - into German idealism.
Stirners main thesis is that of the individual as the ground not only
of observation and creation, but of evaluation. This thesis is given
a short presentation as a 0th chapter in The Ego and His Own: "All
things are Nothing to Me." No outer force is to determine ones cause,
ones evaluation. With a convincing rhetoric, Stirner makes room for
the case that he himself is the evaluator, the one whose cause is to
be acted for.
Stirners main dialectical triad is then this, that we go from mere
experience to action [thought], and as a solution to the strain between
these go to valuation and interest, self-interest. This is a recurring
theme in his book, and the structure of the argument is presented in
the first chapter, very appropriately named "A human Life".
The triad, as I have understood and interpreted it, is this:
The Experiencing Self: This is, so to say, the beacon that enlightens
the empirical world, which makes it possible qua empirical world. With
knowledge of oneself only as experiencing, one is stuck with things,
and all ones activity is centered around things, as Stirner says. One
is a Materialist. In history, both the personal and the philosophical
one, the Empirical Self is seen as a passive observer on whom the world
is imprinted, all until we come to the antithesis of this view:
The Creative Self: We discover our own more active role in experience,
our own contribution of elements/form to our experience, as shown by
the [Kantian inspired] experiments of the early Gestalt psychologists.
With this knowledge, attention goes to thought itself, and, we become
intellectual and spiritual young men. Our quest goes for that in which
we can pry Spirit, and we become - Idealists.
The Teleological Self: There is a [dialectical] strain between the two
views and aspects of the Self above, a conflict that can only, as Stirner
says, be resolved by a third party, which is the synthesis. We begin to
ask: Why do I focus on this, and not on that, in experience? Why do I
create this and not that? For whom am I doing my creation, my thinking?
I find the answer to the above questions in what I will call the
Teleological Self. The Teleological Self is he [or rather - I] for whom
all things done by me are done, the commander who is the measure of all
activity. Any value, any selection, and thereby any focus and any
creation, owes its existence to the Teleological Self. In the Teleological
Self we find the grounding of our "why?".
The dilemma between Materialism and Idealism is resolved in Selfishness.
Not do I go for the material for its sake, nor do I let the cause of any
ideal invade me and make its cause mine. I take both, but as tools and
things to be disposed of at - my pleasure. In this fashion the dialectics
is buried. For it is only alive in the world of ideas, which I have taken
back into myself.
---
This was an attempt to convey some thoughts on the Self. If anyone feels
tempted to pick up this thread, expand on it or negate it, you are
welcome. It will be a pleasure.
[1] Wilber, Engler, Brown: "Transformations of Consciousness"
[2] Robert Pirsig: "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
[3] Friedrich Nietzsche: "Zarathustra", on the Despisers of the Body.
[4] Copleston, Vol VII, p. 40
[5] Max Stirner: "The Ego & His Own"
____________________________________________________________________
Ken Knudson:
A Critique of Communism
and
The Individualist Alternative
(continued)
Before one can get into an intelligent criticism of
anything, one must begin by defining one's terms.
"Anarchism", according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica
dictionary, is "the theory that all forms of government are
incompatible with individual and social liberty and should
be abolished." It further says that it comes from the Greek
roots "an" (without) and "archos" (leader).* As for
"communism", it is "any social theory that calls for the
abolition of private property and control by the community
over economic affairs." To elaborate on that definition,
communists of all varieties hold that all wealth should be
produced and distributed according to the formula "from each
according to his** ability, to each according to his needs"
and that the administrative mechanism to control such
production and distribution should be democratically
organised by the workers themselves (i.e. "workers'
control"). They further insist that there should be no
private ownership of the means of production and no trading
of goods except through the official channels agreed upon by
the majority. With rare exceptions, communists of all
varieties propose to realise this ideal through violent
revolution and the expropriation of all private property.
That no one should accuse me of building up straw men
in order to knock them down, allow me to quote Kropotkin***
--------------------
* Historically, it was Proudhon who first used the word
to mean something other than disorder and chaos: "Although a
firm friend of order, I am (in the full force of the term)
an anarchist." [5]
** Here Marx uses the masculine pronoun to denote the
generic "one". In deference to easy flowing English grammar,
I'll stick to his precedent and hope that Women's Lib people
will forgive me when I, too, write "his" instead of "one's".
*** I have chosen Kropotkin as a "typical" communist-
anarchist here and elsewhere in this article for a number of
reasons. First, he was a particularly prolific writer, doing
much of his original work in English. Secondly, he is
generally regarded as "probably the greatest anarchist
thinker and writer" by many communist- anarchists, including
at least one editor of "Freedom". [6] Finally, he was the
founder of Freedom Press, the publisher of the magazine you
are now reading.
- 5 -
to show that communist-anarchism fits in well with the above
definition of communism:
"We have to put an end to the iniquities, the vices, the
crimes which result from the idle existence of some and the
economic, intellectual, and moral servitude of others.... We
are no longer obliged to grope in the dark for the
solution.... It is Expropriation.... If all accumulated
treasure...does not immediately go back to the collectivity
- since ALL have contributed to produce it; if the insurgent
people do not take possession of all the goods and
provisions amassed in the great cities and do not organise
to put them within the reach of all who need them...the
insurrection will not be a revolution, and everything will
have to be begun over again....Expropriation, - that then,
is the watchword which is imposed upon the next revolution,
under penalty of failing in its historic mission. The
complete expropriation of all who have the means of
exploiting human beings. The return to common ownership by
the nation of all that can serve in the hands of any one for
the exploitation of others." [7]
Now let us take our definitions of communism and
anarchism and see where they lead us. The first part of the
definition of communism calls for the abolition of private
property. "Abolition" is itself a rather authoritarian
concept - unless, of course, you're talking about abolishing
something which is inherently authoritarian and invasive
itself (like slavery or government, for example). So the
question boils down to "Is private property authoritarian
and invasive?" The communists answer "yes"; the
individualists disagree. Who is right? Which is the more
"anarchistic" answer? The communists argue that "private
property has become a hindrance to the evolution of mankind
towards happiness" [8], that "private property offends
against justice" [9] and that it "has developed
parasitically amidst the free institutions of our earliest
ancestors." [10] The individualists, far from denying these
assertions, reaffirm them. After all wasn't it Proudhon who
first declared property "theft"?* But when the communist
--------------------
*By property Proudhon means property as it exists under
government privilege, i.e. property gained not through
labour or the exchange of the products of labour (which he
favours), but through the legal privileges bestowed by
government on idle capital.
- 6 -
says, "Be done, then, with this vile institution; abolish
private property once and for all; expropriate and
collectivise all property for the common good," the
individualist must part company with him. What's wrong with
private property today is that it rests primarily in the
hands of a legally privileged elite. The resolution of this
injustice is not to perpetrate an even greater one, but
rather to devise a social and economic system which will
distribute property in such a manner that everyone is
guaranteed the product of his labour by natural economic
laws. I propose to demonstrate just such a system at the end
of this article. If this can be done, it will have been
shown that private property is not intrinsically invasive
after all, and that the communists in expropriating it would
be committing a most UNanarchistic act. It is, therefore,
incumbent upon all communists who call themselves anarchists
to read carefully that section and either find a flaw in its
reasoning or admit that they are not anarchists after all.
The second part of the definition of communism says
that economic affairs should be controlled by the community.
Individualists say they should be controlled by the market
place and that the only law should be the natural law of
supply and demand. Which of these two propositions is the
more consistent with anarchism? Herbert Spencer wrote in
1884, "The great political superstition of the past was the
divine right of kings. The great political superstition of
the present is the divine right of parliaments." [11] The
communists seem to have carried Spencer's observation one
step further: the great political superstition of the future
shall be the divine right of workers' majorities. "Workers'
control" is their ideology; "Power to the People" their
battle cry. What communist-anarchists apparently forget is
that workers' control means CONTROL. Marxists, let it be
said to their credit, at least are honest about this point.
They openly and unashamedly demand the dictatorship of the
proletariat. Communist-anarchists seem to be afraid of that
phrase, perhaps subconsciously realising the inherent
contradiction in their position. But communism, by its very
nature, IS dictatorial. The communist-anarchists may
christen their governing bodies "workers' councils" or
"soviets", but they remain GOVERNMENTS just the same.
Abraham Lincoln was supposed to have asked, "If you
call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No!
Calling a tail a leg don't MAKE it a leg." The same is true
about governments and laws. Calling a law a "social habit"
[12] or an "unwritten custom" [13] as Kropotkin does,
doesn't change its nature. To paraphrase Shakespeare, that
which we call a law by any other name would smell as foul.
----
REFERENCES
1. Joseph Stalin, "Anarchism or Socialism" (Moscow; Foreign
Languages Publishing House, 1950), p. 85. Written in 1906
but never finished.
2. Ibid., pp. 90-1.
3. Ibid., p.95.
4. Ibid., p. 87.
5. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "What is Property: An Inquiry
into the Principle of Right and of Government," trans.
Benjamin R. Tucker (London: William Reeves), p. 260.
Originally published in French in 1840.
6. Bill Dwyer, "This World", "Freedom," March 27, 1971.
7. Pierre Kropotkine, "Paroles d'un Revolte" (Paris: Ernest
Flammarion, 1885), pp. 318-9.
8. Paul Eltzbacher, "Anarchism: Exponents of the Anarchist
Philosophy," trans. Steven T. Byington, ed. James J. Martin
(London: Freedom Press, 1960), p. 108. "Der Anarchismus" was
originally published in Berlin in 1900.
9. Ibid., p. 109.
10. Ibid., p. 110.
11. Herbert Spencer, "The Man Versus The State," ed. Donald
MacRae
(London: Penguin Books, 1969), p. 151. Originally published
in 1884.
12. Prince Peter Kropotkin, "The Conquest of Bread" (London:
Chapman & Hall, Ltd., 1906), p. 41.
13. Eltzbacher, op. cit., p. 101.
____________________________________________________________________
***********************************************************************
* "Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven" *
* -- Milton, Paradise Lost *
***********************************************************************